@Drlee I agree with some of what you said but disagree on other points:
What I said is that women (the term "pregnant people" demeans women) should have the right to abort their child up to a point.
I don't think "pregant people" is a deameaning term.
1.- women are people, people is not a demeaning/offensive term. I am a male and I am also a person (people if part of a group). I don't consider this to demeaning.
2.- There are transgender men that have been pregnant and given birth. Even if you insist they be called women because of their birth gender and/or genetic sex... wouldnt that be MORE offensive to those people than simply calling them people if you are deliberately calling them by the wrong gender?
That is just a minor issue. Now back to the meat.
... should have the right to abort their child up to a point.
And that point is viability. After that point the law should protect the baby in most cases.
I think this would be a mistake.
For one, viability is not a date. Viability in the 1960's, 1990's and today is very different with the advanse of neonatal intensive care, etc. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that in the 2nd half of this century we might have babies that were fertilized and grown completely out of a human body and/or that embryos /tiny fetus could be removed and grown outside a body. This could very well create a 2 tiered system in which a rich person can have a removal into an incubator and circumbent any sort of penalty or legal action for abortion but a poor/marginalized must take pregnancy to term because an abortion at any stage is illegal because any pregnancy is a viable one with the right care. Now... you could define viability as "viability without medical care" but at that point you would be including quite a bunch of "late abortions".
Even if you define it by today's standards, let's say you define it at 20 weeks. What happens when in 2 years there is an article of a 18week premie that survived and when in 10 years 1% of them are surviving and when in 20 years 10%? We gonna be changing laws every 10 years? I think that is a recipe for disaster.
Alternatively, you could simply legislate it as "viability" rather than specifying fetal age... but that is just kicking the ball back into the courts... the very thing you are saying you dont agree with.
I think this has to be resolved from mother side. We can agree to come with an arbitrary fetal age under which all abortions are fair game (e.g. 20w) and that above that arbitrary number, abortions should be due to risk of pregnancy to completion is very high and much greater than risk of late abortion, major fetal abnormalities that would impact life expectancy, or significant disability, etc.
What I believe is that when a child is capable of living a normal life, and the mother's survival is not at risk, it ought to be allowed to do that.
Aside from the fact that a delivery is not "merely an inconvenience".
These sort of abortions that you are describing are exedingly rare. It is the sort of thing that fanatics like to imagine evil doctors strangling the screaming baby right after "abortion/delivery". When they do occur, very often it is due to a serious complication that would be deadly for the fetus... for instance this case:https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/13/l ... omen-2020/
Here are the numbers for abortions based on gestational age.
Roughly ~1% of them occur after 20 weeks. At this point in time, 20 weeks is as good as it get for "viability" and abortions after this fetal age are rare. This translates to about 7k "late term" (>20weeks) per years. This is a very small number. I reckon if you cannot trust doctors and medical professionals, mothers that the great majority of these (rare) abortions are justified.... then we have a bigger problem.